I must disagree with you that Rich's articles aren't referenced, I recall seeing many references at the bottom of his articles.

Huh...I didn't say such a thing.

But, it seems to me that those who insecurely slide between not knowing what to believe, often find themselves in a predicament of feeling the person who speaks last is right. Perhaps that is why you are so concerned here MBPrata?

That "label" could sound like an offense, but I'll give you some slack. Now, that is true to a certain extent. As in...since I am (sort of) aware of my own ignorance, I usually leave these difficult matters for some the most intelligent people in the world and some of the most informed on the beggining of the universe (aka scientist who study this matter. Or biologists and geologists, maybe). And while they debate - or argue, in some cases - I usually expect some side to have the last word. Not necessarily, because human psichology doesn't work that way and shows that people 9 out of 10 times don't abandon their points of view when given clear evidence opposite to their point of view...but, I don't know; I just feel that God can't blame us for not believing in information that is refuted and nobody can really answer to that refutation.

Last but never least, realizing whether there's a god or not is such an important issue that i just feel (not think; feel) someone can't just refute an argument regarding that debate and then everyone remaining "the same". Like, this is no minor issue; something has changed, and one side really needs to answer or...well...realize their points were just plain wrong. As if they were never points to begin with.

Giving an example from both sides: wouldn't it be sort of flat-out insane if atheists didn't answer when we realized the universe wasn't infinite? Or if christians didn't asnwer when we realized things can come out of nowhere? Those are HUGE issues, in my opinion...

PS: You guys are focusing (is that a verb?) too much on blood transfusions; that's a minor issue. Why don't you focus in more threatning posts, like the ones where the blogger shows a part of godandscience.org and just sort of destroys mr. Deem's arguments one by one? Or the ones where he defines (or tries to) nothingness? Or the one regarding two new discoveries towards godless evolution?

MBPrata wrote:PS: You guys are focusing (is that a verb?) too much on blood transfusions; that's a minor issue. Why don't you focus in more threatning posts, like the ones where the blogger shows a part of godandscience.org and just sort of destroys mr. Deem's arguments one by one? Or the ones where he defines (or tries to) nothingness? Or the one regarding two new discoveries towards godless evolution?

Just saying. It sure would be more productive...

Care to state some examples?
You say that he destroys' Mr Deems arguments, which ones?

Remember, to "destroy" an argument one must first understand it and if his understanding was as bad as the very simple and easy to understand one of blood transfusions, I am not sure why you are concerned.

MBPrata wrote:PS: You guys are focusing (is that a verb?) too much on blood transfusions; that's a minor issue. Why don't you focus in more threatning posts, like the ones where the blogger shows a part of godandscience.org and just sort of destroys mr. Deem's arguments one by one? Or the ones where he defines (or tries to) nothingness? Or the one regarding two new discoveries towards godless evolution?

Just saying. It sure would be more productive...

Care to state some examples?
You say that he destroys' Mr Deems arguments, which ones?

Remember, to "destroy" an argument one must first understand it and if his understanding was as bad as the very simple and easy to understand one of blood transfusions, I am not sure why you are concerned.

Good points Paul.

Without seeing specific arguments that were destroyed, we can't see if the argument Rich made, was actually destroyed. Or if someone's straw man, misrepresentation of Rich's argument was destroyed.

I've read a lot of Rich's articles, and while they're not perfect, I highly doubt anything that Rich actually said, was destroyed.

Post up the most obvious, specific argument, with the atheist's refutation. That way we can see.

1 Corinthians 1:99 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."

MBPrata wrote:PS: You guys are focusing (is that a verb?) too much on blood transfusions; that's a minor issue. Why don't you focus in more threatning posts, like the ones where the blogger shows a part of godandscience.org and just sort of destroys mr. Deem's arguments one by one? Or the ones where he defines (or tries to) nothingness? Or the one regarding two new discoveries towards godless evolution?

Just saying. It sure would be more productive...

The problem with atheists especially those on-line bashing God and Christians is they believe anything a scientist says without examining the evidence or reasoning behind scientific ideas out there.They look to science exclusively for what they believe is ultimate truth over anything a creationist,Christian,etc says. They believe because a person believes in God they cannot be trusted when it comes to science and will reject anything they say. The problem is there are certian atheist scientists that promote scientific ideas and they present these ideas like they are already pretty much true,when these scientific ideas have not even been peer reviewed,yet atheists believe them anyway without examining evidence or reasoning behind them.They only hear what they want to hear.They will ignore anybody who brings up God when it comes to science and trust only those scientists that are atheists regardless of evidence.They have more faith in atheistic scientific ideas than people who believe in God, yet deny it.

Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

With belief in God, you know, when one gets right down to the foundations of reality to discuss the very nature of existence itself -- I really think it becomes apparent and absurd to believe that anything can exist without a supreme all-existing intelligence.

Sadly, most people today, just like to accept existence and reality as it is and not question what it's all hung up on. In a manner of speak, the whole world just floats in mid-air. Just is. Our lives just are. Other's lives just are. What we experience just is. And we might try to understand the mechanics of such, but trying to understand the metaphysical underpinnings of such a reality is often considered off limits.

For example, take a virtual reality simulated in a computer game. It is interesting at its most foundational level your dealing with just 1 and 0. If you've seen or played a game like The Witcher, we see these wonderful characters made, worlds that are now looking quite realistic, the water and hair effects, physics for water ripples, wind and explosions all becoming finely tuned to work just as we might experience in "real" life. If characters in such a world could think, and were like most of society, why many would just accept that the world is what it is without questioning the fundamental basis of such a world. In fact, such a world is built upon digital bits (1s and 0s) that was put together by an intelligence... their world is often switched on and off as "users" load up or save and quit the game. Right? The metaphysics that a VR world runs on just boils down to math. Numbers like 1s and 0s. Even if we don't see or experience such.

It seems too scary a question to ponder for many people today about our own world. Like you're stupid for even considering such questions. That is the realm of philosophers and what can they give us? Well, coherent frameworks of reality for a start. But, when you do start considering such questions and giving answers, the truth of reality starts hitting you in the face more and more... and a NECESSARY intelligence, a designer behind it all, just starts become unavoidable in any coherent framework of reality, existence and things. Such that, some Naturalistic philosophers are now wanting to include intelligence as part of the "natural fabric" of our world like we do the physical stuff.

But, people today are not taught to keep asking questions. We're setup to just learn, learn and learn and be educated into whatever the existing body of knowledge is today, to accept certain knowledge and issues as more important based upon what those in society (governments and those pushing their ideology) running education deem to be important. Whether that's sexual issues, environmental issues, being a good "international citizen" (you students know who you are! ) or the like.

If they do ask the deeper questions, they're told no one really knows, there are no answers. And so many people just accept whatever is placed before them (even though no one really knows, right?). As FL said somewhere else, people want to follow and need to be lead. BUT, stop just following. If you do stop, and keep asking questions, then you can arrive at some very foundational questions about reality for which coherent answers can be found. And funnily enough, logic and reasoning by thinkers over 2500 years ago often still holds to this day.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

NO one who wants the "little god" (THEMSELF) to remain in control of their lives wants to seek or acknowledge the REAL God. So, to accomplish this/avoid God, they accept, maintain and cultivate all kinds of self-absorbed lies designed to continue their DESIRED delusion that there is no God. Either that or they cultivate personal belief in a some hodgepodge construction of an acceptable ("tolerant") god who requires no more than you care or desire to give "him."

But, on some level, I believe most such people ARE aware of the true God (per Romans), but they've so long suppressed/repressed that knowledge - along with their own self-absorbed false constructs of who or what they deem to be god - that He doesn't matter to them. One huge hint is the great anger so many have when confronted with Scripture or things that have the ability to show God to be a reality, IF they'd only pay attention or truly desire to know. And WHY the anger? Why such common obsessiveness with proving God, the Bible, Jesus, Scripture is all fiction? I mean, WHY would anyone really care so much about a God they insist doesn't even exist. It's like me getting in an uproar over that Zeus cult (remember, that god Zeus that I believe is pure fiction).

MBPrata wrote:PS: You guys are focusing (is that a verb?) too much on blood transfusions; that's a minor issue. Why don't you focus in more threatning posts, like the ones where the blogger shows a part of godandscience.org and just sort of destroys mr. Deem's arguments one by one? Or the ones where he defines (or tries to) nothingness? Or the one regarding two new discoveries towards godless evolution?

Just saying. It sure would be more productive...

The problem with atheists especially those on-line bashing God and Christians is they believe anything a scientist says without examining the evidence or reasoning behind scientific ideas out there.They look to science exclusively for what they believe is ultimate truth over anything a creationist,Christian,etc says. They believe because a person believes in God they cannot be trusted when it comes to science and will reject anything they say. The problem is there are certian atheist scientists that promote scientific ideas and they present these ideas like they are already pretty much true,when these scientific ideas have not even been peer reviewed,yet atheists believe them anyway without examining evidence or reasoning behind them.They only hear what they want to hear.They will ignore anybody who brings up God when it comes to science and trust only those scientists that are atheists regardless of evidence.They have more faith in atheistic scientific ideas than people who believe in God, yet deny it.

Well, maybe he is angry. But I wouldn't see him as a "nemesis" for this website if he didn't back up most of his claims with sources. As in...he may be angry, but that won't make him less right in case he is right...

Somebody backing them up with sources does not always lead to truth.Always make sure to the best of your abilities that even the sources are truthful.Alot of people just believe everything they read and yet are wrong. Just a good tip of advice for you,whether you believe in God or not too.People will play you a fool if they can.

1. I've been in both sides. And, believe me, neither is that puzzling. I, for example, don't get puzzled because you believe in God; I think you have your logical reasons to believe it. And I have have mine that keep me away from belief. Naturally...
2. Most atheists I know actually want to believe that a god exists. They just can't. It just makes no sense in their heads.

Care to state some examples?
You say that he destroys' Mr Deems arguments, which ones?

Well, he does have some posts whose title clearly indicates "God and Science" I, II, III, IV and yadda yadda...but ok, I'll give you the links as soon as I can.

The problem with atheists especially those on-line bashing God and Christians is they believe anything a scientist says without examining the evidence or reasoning behind scientific ideas out there.

Maybe, but how on Earth can they confirm information regarding atoms, quantum mechanics and so forth? We can't just all work in a particle accelerator, you know...and most of us don't have one at home (it spend tons of energy as well, so it would kill your finances...)

yet atheists believe them anyway without examining evidence or reasoning behind them.They only hear what they want to hear.They will ignore anybody who brings up God when it comes to science and trust only those scientists that are atheists regardless of evidence.

That would probably be because of how our brain works; most of the time, defending an idea isn't really about defending it, but rather about a sort of battle, as in "us vs. them". Not only in religion; politics is also a great example. If you wanna blame anyone for the ridiculous way our brains works...blame God! He designed our brain and specified how it would work, didn't He? (naturally, I blame the laws of physics, not God)

Well, maybe he is angry. But I wouldn't see him as a "nemesis" for this website if he didn't back up most of his claims with sources. As in...he may be angry, but that won't make him less right in case he is right...

Somebody backing them up with sources does not always lead to truth.Always make sure to the best of your abilities that even the sources are truthful.Alot of people just believe everything they read and yet are wrong. Just a good tip of advice for you,whether you believe in God or not too.People will play you a fool if they can.

Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.